Pages

I grew up in the cradle of revolution—the province of Hunan and received “red” education since I was little. Everything I saw, everything I heard, made me revere and long for “revolution”. When the Cultural Revolution began, I welcomed it with the pure passion of a child.

That passion lasted until 1968, the year two massacres occurred in succession in Daoxian and Shaoyang of Hunan province. From then on, I came to have my own understanding of the nature of the Cultural Revolution.

In recent years, the clouds over China's future is thickening.
Whether as an alternative political model for future China or as a
historic question that cannot be sidestepped, Mao Zedong and his
governing approach is getting more frequently into the view of the
public.

On August 27 this year, over a hundred liberals inside the
Communist Party of China and intellectuals attended a seminar marking
the 30th anniversary of "The Resolution on certain
historical problems of the Party since the founding
of the People's Republic" (关于建国以来党的若干历史问题的决议),
and again they stated that a correct understanding of the Cultural
Revolution and Mao Zedong is crucial for present politics of China.

Perspectives to understanding the historic roles of Mao Zedong

Beijing's reluctance to face the history and its use of various
propaganda machine to deliberately magnify the bright side of Mao
Zedong's political carrier would result not only in the
misunderstanding of Mao among the young generation, but also profound
confusion in the political thinking of the Chinese people.

After the 2011 “Jasmine Revolutions” in MENA, the “Club of
Tyranny” formed by the world's dictators has lost several of its
members.

“Dictators” typically mean those leaders who obtain the
highest power in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Looking back
at the way they rose to power, one would find something interesting:
although some became leaders of their countries through democratic
elections first and realized dictatorship after their cabinets were
formed; even more of them, however, headed for dictatorship through
the revolutionary road. From revolution leaders to dictators, these
people didn't seem to need any change in the way they thought and
acted. The only difference was whether or not they had powers in
their hands.

The year 2011 will be an important one in world history. Because
in this year, the outbreak of “Jasmine Revolutions” in MENA make
it clear that—

One) The main
impetus of these revolutions is the awakening rights consciousness of
the people. Given that rights consciousness is something unique to
Western civilization, thus the so-called “clash of civilizations”
has changed from wars between countries as well as the war on terror
into confrontations between the people requesting their rights and
the leader holding onto their powers inside totalitarian states;

Two) The clash
between Western and Muslim civilizations has relegated to secondary
status while the clash between the pseudo-Chinese civilization—a
combination of Oriental despotism and Communism—and the Western
civilization will become increasingly sharpened in the form of
internal confrontations.

In “Why would the wealth of dictators end up evaporated? (One)” I went through the background of the Swiss Dictator Assets Law. In this article I would write about the legal basis for Britain, the United States and other countries to freeze assets of MENA dictators.

This round of actions by Western countries like Britain and the United States to freeze assets of dictators based on UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973, which drew their legitimacy from Article 41 of the UN Charter: “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force...” so that international peace and security can be maintained. The freezing of assets belonging to the dictator is of course a measure that does not involve the use of armed force.

After revolutions broke out in MENA, a striking phenomenon appeared. Britain, U.S. and Switzerland, one after another, announced a freeze on the huge wealth that Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, and Muammar Gaddafi have accumulated and deposited in Western Democracies.

These democracies unanimously pledged that once the new governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have completed relevant legal procedures, the assets of the above mentioned dictators will be returned to the countries concerned.